I want Sherman to somehow win this appeal but the number of players failing this test over the past 2 yrs has been staggering and even the Seahawks have had several fail it. Sherman was getting the love and recognition he had been striving for only to have this hit him. He can recover from the hit but his popularity will plateau for awhile until this episode plays out and washes away over time.

We will know soon enough whether the suspension sticks. It will impact his ability to increase his market value. Really dismayed to see his name associated with these results.

MeenReen wrote:Seriously guys. I barely even post here, but it's ridiculous how quick you all are to defend Sherm in his appeals process. I get that you want him to win his appeal (so do I), but to defend someone that tested positive just because he is one of the most important cogs on the team is a little homerish (yeah, that's a word). Are you all really saying that you believe that he pinpointed his positive drug test to a time (two months prior) where he drank water out of a teammates water bottle that had crushed up Aderall in it? Do you all remember every sip of water you've taken in the past two months? Why didn't he have his own water? There are people being paid 50k+ to make sure the athletes on the Hawks are hydrated. Why did the other dude feel the need to freebase it? Didn't he try to say it was a player who had a prescription? Would that type of player be crushing it up to get a quicker release into his system?

I applaud the poster who was being realistic.

First of all you must be living under a rock if you still think that the "water bottle" story is even remotely the truth. It was a debunked rumor. Thanks for playing though.

fridayfrenzy wrote:I'd call him the smart guy. Sherman is the idiot for taking PEDs and should be left off the pro-bowl roster for sure.

Hey closet 49ers fan, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. You're certainly not needed around here. If you feel that way, that's fine, but the way you said it and how you come off with it is horrible and juvenile.

That's funny.

When the original poster calls an analyst an idiot for not including Richard Sherman on the Pro Bowl, then thats perfectly acceptable, but when a Seahawk fan is not happy about Seahawk players who test positive for PEDs then that means they are juvenille.

fridayfrenzy wrote:The proof is that he tested positive test for PEDs.

Then why hasn't he been suspended yet?

Because there is a procedure that is followed by the NFL and NFLPA, just like a judicial system. Before a player misses any games, he has the right to appeal the ruling.

An appeal is an attempt to change the ruling. He has already been found "guilty". He is just going to the next level of the system to try and get that ruling reversed.

So there could be a change in the ruling if maybe perhaps he wasn't actually guilty? Because maybe, just maybe, he isn't actually guilty which is why he is fighting. You know, it's not like a player has ever won an appeal before, right?

Sherm isn't guilty yet because he hasn't been suspended. He gets an appeal because there could be error on the so-called "positive" test. If there could be no error and he was guilty then he would already be serving his suspension.

Just face it whinerfrenzy, there's a chance Sherm isn't guilty. Why you painted yourself into this very corner is beyond me, but you really have no leg to stand on here.

I have been a Seahawk fan for almost 15 years. Just because I do not think that Sherman can do no wrong and that he should be held accountable for taking PEDs and putting the Seahawk organization in a worse spot does not mean I am a 49er fan.

If Sherman's appeal does not change the ruling, then he will most likely miss the last 1-2 games of the season and 2-3 playoff games. As a Seahawk fan, how can you not think that is detrimental to the team? If it is detrimental to the team, how can you just give Sherman a free pass for that?

Because there is a procedure that is followed by the NFL and NFLPA, just like a judicial system. Before a player misses any games, he has the right to appeal the ruling.

An appeal is an attempt to change the ruling. He has already been found "guilty". He is just going to the next level of the system to try and get that ruling reversed.

So there could be a change in the ruling if maybe perhaps he wasn't actually guilty? Because maybe, just maybe, he isn't actually guilty which is why he is fighting. You know, it's not like a player has ever won an appeal before, right?

Sherm isn't guilty yet because he hasn't been suspended. He gets an appeal because there could be error on the so-called "positive" test. If there could be no error and he was guilty then he would already be serving his suspension.

Just face it whinerfrenzy, there's a chance Sherm isn't guilty. Why you painted yourself into this very corner is beyond me, but you really have no leg to stand on here.

Of course there is a chance Sherman gets off in the appeal process, and I hope he does, but you are acting as if he is not guilty and that he is going to pee in a cup on Friday and then we shall see if he tests postive for PEDs or not. That is not the case, Sherman's sample tested positive for PEDs. That is a fact.

History shows that it is very very rare for NFL players to have their rulings changed. Many professional sports players use the appeal process to delay suspensions.